Discussions

The petition to stop Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau from ordering mass confiscations against honest men and women surged to the country’s No. 1 e-petition on record last night.  
 
Petition e-2341 on Democratic Process and Parliamentary Democracy had more than 132,540 signatures as of 12:45 p.m. Ottawa time today, the most of any online petition to the House of Commons since the system started in 2016.  
 
It exceeded the 130,452 of the previous record holder late last night, and is still open for two weeks.

What this is about? Can u elaborate ?

Petition details  
Petition to the Government of Canada  
Whereas:  
 
The Government of Canada has expressed its intention to ban, what it refers to as “military-style assault rifles”, through an Order in Council;  
Public Safety Canada’s information notes this is not a legal definition in Canada;  
The use of an Order in Council is an egregious overreach of executive authorities, bypassing the democratic process of the House and the elected representatives of Canadians;  
This executive order would strip law-abiding Canadians it has approved through the RCMP Canada Firearms Program, of their legally purchased property;  
The use of an Order in Council ignores the Government’s survey on firearms where “the majority of respondents did not support further limiting access to firearms & assault-style firearms”;  
The proposed buyback of legal, licenced firearms could cost the Canadian taxpayer over $250,000,000 which could be better spent on initiatives that have an appreciable positive impact on public safety such as: deter youth from gangs, addiction treatment, mental health, strengthened border security, and increase police anti-gang capacities;  
An Order in Council ban on “military-style assault rifles” would fail to take firearms away from criminals; and  
A ban would unfairly target Canadian firearms owners who are already among the most vetted in Canadian society. Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) and Restricted PAL (RPAL) holders are subject to daily screening and are statistically proven to be less likely to commit crimes than non-PAL & non-RPAL holders.

I have a PAL and have done for some years for pest control. You are correct that legitimate PAL holders are very much less likely to be involved in any kind of crime. I am interested in guns and for some of us they are an important tool , for others part of their hunting and lots appreciate a nicely made gun and it’s engineering. But no civilian needs to own a military style weapon or a hand gun I’m sorry. In the UK you have to be god to own a .22 rifle and you sure can’t walk into an outdoor store over there and look at guns that are freely displayed, so we are pretty lucky in this country.

It is a vague definition of what is military style. I was explained basically anything that has semi-automatic capabilities could/would be prohibited. That could also include your .22cal semi-auto gopher gun. As for what people need or don't need. Drunk drivers kill just as many people per year as guns. Do we ban cars? The weapons criminals use to kill each other, do you really think they are legally bought from the store by someone with a PAL? Attend a shooting competition and I would like someone to explain to them why they should not be using the guns they own anymore. Knives kill more people than guns yet we don't ban knives. Total firearms homicide in Canada - 2018 - Less than 250 people. 10-20 million guns owned in Canada. It isn't guns that kill people. People kill people.  
https://thegunblog.ca/facts-stats/  
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510007201  
https://madd.ca/pages/impaired-driving/overview/statistics/

Typical scaremongering. Military style is obviously defined as assault style weapons. Nobody needs that except military and police. And why would you want such a gun to hunt or shoot a coyote? There is clear distinction between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle. The need for an assault rifle will never gain popular traction with the public so we may as well accept the inevitable.

Scaremongering is exactly what the current Liberal Government is doing. They are saying that further restricting guns that are legally bought and stored by legally licensed people will save lives.  
Whereas the gun infractions now, are being committed by people who are not licensed to own guns and have unlicensed guns. These are the people who need to be clamped down on, not the ordinary hunter or sportsman.  
We already have some of the toughest gun regulations in the world for licensing of firearms but we have the weakest laws for those who commit crimes using illegal guns.  
We have seen the fiasco created by Allan Rock in the government misunderstanding of the cost of implementing a gun registery. This government will do no better with their idea of a buy back program. They are grossly underestimating the cost the guns they want to prohibit.  
The guns being called into question now are being properly bought, stored and used in a controlled environment.

with your train of thought, lets ban and take away cars, trucks and motorcycles that will go faster than the speed limit, ration food so you will not over eat, ban and take away unhealthy food. The list could go on. All of these items are not necessary, but enjoyed by many.  
Also the food banning would likely save more lives and medical expenses than taking away all of the guns in Canada.  
While we are at it, lets ban dogs, some have jobs, but many of them serve no purpose other than enjoyment by their owners. An article in The Canadian veterinary attributes 28 deaths due to dogs between 1990-2007 in Canada.  
The banning of guns in Canada is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction by a government, bending to a noisy group and doing it thru a back door.  
There have been police statements made that the banning of certain guns will not fix anything. That should hold more credibility in my opinion than some noisy group.  
Our media also holds some responsibility due to poor and or selective reporting. When someone is killed or injured with a gun, they often fail to mention the gun used was illegally brought into Canada, owned by someone who is not authorized to own a gun, etc It is reported in away to sensationalize the story.  
 
In my opinion the money spent banning, cost of defending the ban, administering the ban etc would better spent on things like hospitals, roads, beefing up the board to prevent the entry of illegal guns. Think back to the gun registry program, that worked out well, didn't it  
 
For the record I do not own or have any desire to own a gun  
 
Edited by floyd2, 2020-01-29 18:35:25

Are all correct I won’t deny it. Legal gun owners are not the issue regarding gun crime or any crime. Unfortunately an increasingly urban based population does not see it that way. They expect to see certain styles of weapon taken out of circulation. The only way that government can look like they are achieving that is to target legal gun owners ( the responsible ones who aren’t the problem ) . And government will work to remove such weapons and the majority of the public will support that. It isn’t necessarily fair on legal owners but they don’t care about that. And yes it may be the start of a slippery slope towards losing certain other freedoms, which is a great shame. Having seen how gun laws tightened up abroad I can’t see things going down differently here.

And the pressure from those city votes will be enough to get such a law through. A petition won’t change a thing.  
London, England is a hotbed of every kind of crime, a hell hole in-fact, I know I’m English and we had some quite strict gun ownership laws. A shotgun couldn’t hold more than 3 shells when we were there, and to own a .22 was a whole different licence and another level of legislation. But public demand forced those controls.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2020-01-30 00:00:22

We have to remember that guns don't kill people, they don't go off on their own.. people kill people. Or accidents if not kept in a safe/locked place. I have my PAL, and so does my significant other. He enjoys going to the range to shoot his hand guns. If handled correctly, and appropriately, there is absolutely nothing wrong with owning a firearm if you do it legally. Now, do we really need assault rifles... I don't think so. I think there should be some division as to who can own this type of weapon. I don't think the general public really needs to own it, they do have shooting ranges, especially in Calgary that you can test out any gun you want.

There is no precedent that a fear monger like me can point to, is there?  
A time wherein a gun that was locked up safely was accessed anyway and used to go on a rampage.  
 
Alrighty then.  
 
Personally, I don't know why people with big gun envy can't just buy a disabled variant of the real thing. You know, so the family member or acquaintance that knows where the keys are doesn't have the power of a military machine of slaughter. Heck, if it were disabled, you wouldn't even have to keep it locked up.  
 
And for those that MUST have a real working semi-auto (or whatever you gun guys are fond of), how about some REAL secure storage. Like a vault at the gun club you presumably will be using the gun, because where else are you going to be using that thing and not end up on the 6 o'clock news?  
 
Gun people annoy me.  
 
This is Canada, and people hunt. However, the easier the access to guns at home, the higher the chance it could be used on (or by) someone close to you. Forget about mass violence.  
Think about mental health issues our society doesn't deal with. Or domestic abuse problems that we also have problems with tackling.  
 
Edited by Simonwalcal, 2020-01-30 09:39:30

People who have limited knowledge with our current gun laws annoy me....  
 
Semi automatic rifles and shotguns are fully legal. They are stored locked up at the owner’s residence. There is no need for a central storage.  
 
This might happen. This could happen. The current government loves getting votes tackling gun crime. Take care of the problem. Not the law abiding citizens.  
 
Funny how Trudeau is leaving the hand gun situation to local governments. He knows damn well it would be a mistake to federally ban them. And once the results are released and gun crime still increases after certain locals do ban them, who will actually concede their plan was a failure from the start.  
 
Unfortunately for all the sheep following the leader, it’s all optics and not real solutions. Time will tell. You will see, whether you admit it or not.  
 
Take all the guns away from Canadians and the criminals will still be shooting each other. They don’t use legally purchased firearms. Get that through your head.

First of all: criminals, by definition, don't tend to follow laws so increased laws are not likely to affect them.  
 
More importantly, people keep massaging the term assault rifle to fit their agenda and often use terms such as military style or assault style. That makes me think that a firearm might soon be classified based on how it looks. Wooden stock - nice hunting rifle. Black composite stock - Ooooh scary.  
 
The traditional meaning of an assault rifle is one that has a switch for 3 firing options. 1 - fully automatic 2 - burst fire (one trigger squeeze =: 3 quick shots) 3 - semi automatic. All guns in this category are prohibited and only attainable by very few.  
 
If the government wants to limit magazine capacity, that is a slightly different argument and one that can be had outside of talk regarding the banning of firearms. If people wish to keep using fear mongering and modified definitions to serve an agenda then they are misleading the people and nothing good can come of that.  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2020-01-30 11:10:45

Centralized storage is not the answer. That is just a shopping center for criminals. Look at Brandon few years back when guns were stolen from a local business. Why have bunch of guns locked up in a room. It isn't just about the "assault" rifles currently sold. I have many friends that have legal war era guns that their family has used in the war. Why should one have to give up that piece of history passed down to them.

My caveat up front: I am not a gun owner, I have no personal interest in gun ownership, but I support some firearm ownership for hunting, pest control etc, primarily in rural settings. They are a useful tool, but not a toy.  
 
I think part of the desire to limit and restrict certain classes of guns, while it seems to "punish" legal, responsible owners, also limits the supply the illegal guns. Most illegals are stolen, and if there's no semi-automatic weapons to steal, they can't be used by criminals because they simply don't exist.  
 
I realize the #1 source of illegal guns in this country is the US by a incredible margin, but we can't do anything about that short of stepping up security at the border to make sure they don't come over the line. What we can do, however, is limit their availability domestically.  
 
Something to ponder. Guns are designed for death, and like I said above, there are legitimate reasons for someone to own certain types of firearms as a tool. But there's no reason why a semi-automatic needs to be owned by any private citizen other than for hobby or show.

Illegal guns are illegal to own by anyone. Properly stored legal guns that are stolen don't become illegal guns.  
The criminal who steals them won't have a Pal or an RPal.  
If all semi automatics were banned then the criminals, if they can't get one from the black market, would use a bolt action or lever action rifle.

Some people are collectors and are into what you consider a military style rifle. Kinda like being into Sports cars which have more power and speed than needed with the speed limits. do you really need a car that can hit 200 kmh when the highest speed limit in this country is 110? There is a clear distinction between a highway and a race track!

I hear what you say. I think that you can own some of these guns if deactivated although I realize that for true enthusiasts a deactivated weapon isn’t the same and likely holds no value.  
I don’t personally need a rifle that resembles an assault rifle, I don’t need a super car although as a mechanic I appreciate the engineering. My self I am into motorcycles, have been for years and own three. I don’t though need a 200mph motorcycle and wouldn’t want one, that is my choice.  
I think though that you have to realize that the general public wants to see increased gun control measures from government, fair or not. We went through this after the Hungerford killings in the UK, I think that it was around 1989.  
Gun ownership laws did tighten up significantly then and it was around that time that the magazine capacities were limited and we had to list all guns owned with the authorities. There were some exceptions made for collectors. I seem to remember that there was a widespread amnesty as well so that people could turn in illegal or unwanted weapons for destruction with no questions asked. People still own guns in the UK.  
In all honesty it probably didn’t prevent any violent crime from occurring but was a measure that the public wanted and it was passed. Would it be easier to do similar here, accept some restrictions, a compromise to please the public eye but keep possession of our hunting rifles and shotguns in the long run?  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2020-01-30 19:09:25

reaction with no real sensible thought put into the banning of some guns. It is no more than a feel good action.  
According to stats Canada there was 266 victims killed by a firearm in Canada in 2017.  
Health Canada says. 800 non smokers die each year due to problems brought on by second hand smoke. More innocent people are dying from second smoke than guns. Banning tobacco rather than guns would save 3 times as many lives. Banning tobacco rather than some guns would be cheap, no buyback, just a few lawsuits to deal with and 3 times the value. Save 800 lives instead of 266.  
Canadian association of chiefs of police say there when 1898 motor vehicle fatalities in 2017 and 27% which equals 512 where caused by speeding. Why not mandate a speed control device on all motor vehicles that would prevent speeding. With todays GPS and electronics it would not be that hard. You don't hear a big cry and lobby for that.  
If your plan is to save lives, pick things that are killing the most people and can be fixed. Banning certain guns will not fix anything and just waste a lot of money.  
Think back to the long gun registration, how did that work out for cost. How much money was wasted. That money would of provided a lot of health care and really saved lives or lowered our deficit and saved tax payers money.  
 
 
I do not own and guns and have no desire to own a gun, but resent my tax money being spent foolishly. I consider spending money to ban/buy back guns a foolish waste of yours and my tax dollar. Any estimate of cost in my opinion will be very much biased and will be a very small fraction of the end cost

First off AR-15 stands for Armalite rifle and not assault rifle. It is a semi automatic weapon. Full automatic rifles in Canada are illegal except for law enforcement and military. You can also purchase, as long as you have a valid PAL, a semi automatic shotgun. The difference between auto and semi is automatic will continue to fire until the magazine is empty or trigger is released and a semi automatic requires squeezing the trigger each time.  
If they do follow through with this law who will decide what are Assault rifles and what are not. This most likely will fall to a politician who knows nothing about weapons so who knows what would be banned and where is this going to stop. Will hunters be to a point of throwing rocks at their game.  
If the government is allowed to continue whats next chocolate bars as they can be hazardous to our health.

..... all of sudden concerned for people’s lives.  
 
Instead of banning assault weapons make smoking illegal ....  
 
Instead of banning assault weapons, slow traffic down with governors.....  
 
Well if it’s only about saving lives with all you altruistic gun toters then how about you get rid of your internet, sell your guns, and send all that money to a third world country and save millions of lives?  
 
It’s not about that though is it. It’s about getting your way regardless. At least stand up and own it. Don’t try and hide behind reasons of altruism. It’s unbecoming.

Well you totally missed the point. The point is that we have a government that believes if you take the legal right of gun ownership away from legally licenced people, that will stop murders and violence.  
All that these replies are is for comparison value.  
The government will spend piles of our money on firearm regulation (that is already pretty strict), and they preach that it will save lives.  
These comparison post just point out how many more lives could be spared by slowing down cars or banning smoking.  
They say "do people really need a hand gun or Semi auto rifle"? I say do people really need a street bike that can go 200 mph or a corvette that can do the same?  
Statistics show that speed related auto fatalities are way higher than gun related fatalities. If it a concern for lives, then regulate accordingly.  
Take some time and look into how many violent crimes with firearms were committed with legally obtained firearms.  
Criminals get their guns illegally. Do you honestly think that making a hand gun even more illegal will stop a criminal from shooting someone? Then maybe we should make murder a crime! Oh wait it already is... So why are people still killing people?  
There are articles right here on e-brandon showing home made guns that the Brandon police found. I Guess making guns illegal will also stop that from happening.  
I can guarantee you that I can lay any one of my guns on my table and it will not jump up and kill anyone. but at the same time the intersection by my house has had 5 people killed and 3 severely injured in the past 18 month from vehicles blowing the stop sign. it wasn't the cars decisions to not stop, it was human decision. Just like pulling the trigger is human decision. making it illegal to not stop at a stop sign didn't save lives in these cases just like making it illegal to own a gun wont save lives.  
Anyone who has the mindset that banning guns will make the country safe should also believe that we will no longer require law enforcement to carry weapons because they wont need one either, because if guns are banned then the criminals will not have any.  
After that all we have to do is ban meth, cocaine, heroine, and all the other drugs, ban sexual assault, ban theft and robbery. Hell the world will be all rainbows and lollypops, because if its banned there will be no illegal market for all of that either

On the one hand you have a federal government trying to ban civilian gun ownership under the guise of public safety all the while selling combats arms to barbaric foreign governments and dictatorships without a care in the world for the people they plan to oppress with them.  
 
Look back in history at the governments who successfully banned or extremely limited civilian ownership of arms so their people couldn't defend themselves, russia under lenin, germany under hitler, china under mao, etc, 10's of millions exterminated because their governments knew the people had no means to stand up to them.  
 
There's only one reason why governments try to ban civilian ownership of arms and that's CONTROL, they fear being risen up against if the people decide they've become too corrupt or they try to force thru legislation that goes against the peoples wishes.

Do you mean, Britan?  
 
Also, for all the people in fear of having all the nasties in one locked room . . . works for banks.

You're not wrong.  
 
But what do we know? We're just sheeple, bowing to our dear leader Justin.  
 
The man who has had the helm for 4.5 years. Verses 8 under the other guy.  
 
Edited by Simonwalcal, 2020-01-31 12:08:59

....speaking of missed points LOL.  
 
The point I was trying to make is this. If you want to fight for your right to own a gun you go ahead. Explain to the powers that be why it is you need it or even just want it. There are reasons aren't there?  
 
If you can convince them you need it or should just be allowed to own it because you just want to own it then more power to you. But if you say I need / want to own this gun because you haven't governed vehicles or because smoking is still allowed then you will get you nowhere. It is disingenuous to suggest that a government body no nothing because it can't do it all.  
 
We have many regulations in place governing the use of vehicles. We have many regulations in place governing smoking of tobacco and now pot. These regulations have served to save many many lives.  
 
Do you think gun violence will go down if criminals now have a selection of automatics to steal when they are robbing John Q.?  
 
How do you think things would go in Canada if we had gun laws as free as our neighbors to the South?  
 
I don't have the answers as to what should be allowed, why and when but I do know that if you cant support your ideals directly, without all the straw man arguments you have little chance of winning folks over.  
 
Good luck

Misinformation by the uninformed, to say the least.

Why would you say that? I don’t understand what you are getting at? I only put forward the reasons that I own guns, and maybe there could be some sort of compromise reached.  
Also I tried to illustrate that our gun control laws are not nearly as strict as those in the UK and that the relative freedoms we have here in Canada are something that we should be grateful for.